Unfortunately they didn't realize that some accounts are shared across many contributors, as in the case of translation teams. So the number should be a bit bigger. But, they're in the ballpark at least.

Rough translation:
The core team, about 20 people, decide about the projects' general direction. They make the most important decisions - like what applications are included in new releases - based on democratic elections. Member of this group of core developers can become, whoever has contibuted to the project accordingly.

I'd rather call it a "loose democratic system". People take their position on certain issues and that ends in a result.

Of course, the ideas of people acually working on that issue which is subject to discuss and long time project members ideas are mostly accepted because they often know best. However, that's not really a "dictatorship" of the core-team as it might appear in the article. KDE is always open for reasonable arguments, that's one of the thing KDE makes so successfull and popular.

That's why I think calling the way decistions in KDE are made a "group dynamic process" fits it best.

Would you guys quit breaking so many records?!? How am I suppose to keep up to date on all of this if there are new records broken so often!!! Sheesh, could some of you go work on the GNOME project or something to slow down the record breaking?